Legality and the SDMB.

In this thread, mention of legality and the SDMB were brought up. To my knowledge the site that was deleted has not been branded illegal. It seems that Napster itself should have the same fate as <previous said deleted site>. If in fact you delete anything with the word Napster in it, you would then be deleting a highly debated topic.

I didnt really feel this fit in the Pit, so… what’s the deal here?

I take it the deleted references were to Napster-like sites were you can download music for free? If so, that’s a breach of the copyright of those musicians not party to any agreement for that site to use their music in that way.

Similar reason why Mods and Admins edit out full text copy from sites etc. If I make an error like this, I say okay and move on. Let’s respect the environment, people! In this case, the environment of copyright and intellectual property.

Sorry if I keep sounding like a kiss-ass, but I think there are other things more dire to whinge about than this.

Sure, but Chronos didn’t say people couldn’t ask questions about Napster. I’m not a mod, but “What is the legal status of alternatives to Napster?” would probably be viewed differently to “So, where else can I steal music from?” which seemed more the gist of that thread, or at least how some people took it. (Debate on the matter would not be welcome in GQ of course.) This seems pretty clear from Chronos’ closing remark:

Ice Wolf and picmr have explained the SD’s, and the Chicago Reader’s stance on Napster and other copyright issues beautifully. Thanks, guys.

OK, I understand It’s all in the wording, got it. My point is that these services have not been deemed a breach of copyright infringement, yet. To judge that these service would be used for illegal uses is jumping the gun. Fine point but in the OP in question, no mention of illegal use is mentioned.
I’m not trying to sell crack pipes as bubble machines here. I just want clarity on what is and is not going to get edited. Cuz, it seems to me that Napster should have been deleted out of that post as well as the rest.
BTW, I did try to keep this out of the pit, come on give me some credit here! :smiley:

Yes, absoul, you deserve credit for not taking this to the pit. ::applause:: 'Else, you’d have stood an average chance of getting flamed.

If you don’t know just yet, you don’t post stuff that crosses into the ethical/legal turf of copyright infringement, okay? The Chicago Reader don’t like it, so that’s that. And sure, the sites you are referring to may not have been “judged” yet – but haven’t you ever heard of “better safe than sorry”?

Prevent accidents before they happen is a mainstay of occupational health everywhere. If it smacks of copyright theft, looks like it might be copyright theft (when judged!), and smells like copyright theft – it’s deleted.

I’d say death threats against fellow posters is in the no-no list, too. There’s gotta be a few other examples posted in the staff canteen. Have a private e-mail chat with your favourite mod, sometime.

Y’all did a great job here, so all I can say is “thank you.”

your humble TubaDiva

I believe you have missed my point entirely Ice Wolf, but thank you anyway.


But the legality of the services is hotly debated, so at the least we can say that the question of legality has been raised (publicly, vociferously, repeatedly) and at the most we can say that it appears at this time (based on the rulings to date) that utilizing such sites to access music without paying for it is more likely than not to be illegal.

It is not IMO “jumping the gun” to want to discourage activity that may be, or very likely is, illegal, but for which The Final Word has not yet descended from on high. If there is some question about the legality of any activity, the way of safety is to refrain from that activity until the question is resolved. Moreover, it is not my interpretation of CHRONOS’s post and TUBA’s post that the SDMB encourages or discourages the use of such sites – just that they do not want this site to be a clearinghouse on how to obtain information to (possibly) commit a crime. This seems to me to be entirely reasonable.

Ok, here goes. I dont care if these sites are illegal. If you delete one them you must delete them all. Napster was not deleted I was confused as to why.
Why was Napster not deleted?

I should have just gone right to the pit, live and learn.

Absoul, you really are missing the point here.

Anyone with half a brain cell can spend five seconds on a search engine and get a ton of links to sites where they can download music.

In some cases it’s legal.

In other cases it’s not.

Some people don’t care about little niceties like copyright law, the rights of others, etc.

We do.

You can discuss this subject here (if you can find anybody that wants to discuss it with you), but we won’t facilitate the use of it.

That’s the rule here.

This was headed to the Pit anyway, but since you asked, it can go right now.

Thanks for playing, hope you got your flameproof undies.

your humble TubaDiva

As I just mentioned to absoul in chat, there was a thread a while back where a mod or admin stated that the Chicago Reader did not want any advice on DL’ing MP3s posted on this site. Among other reasons was the idea that if any particular site ever is ruled illegal, CR could be held liable for any such posted information. Wish I had a link…

Ok, this started as a basic question.
Why were all file-sharing sites deleted but Napster was not.
Simple Ehh?
I never meant for this to turn into a debate, it was a simple question, which is why I posted it in ATMB. Please understand that I did not intend for this to turn into a file-sharing vs. whoever debate. I dont care. I questioned what I could and could not post. I did not want to start a thread asking about the cease and desist order, refered to in the first thread, and then have the mods come down on me for mentioning it.

Smeghead – this the one?

Why didn’t they wipe out reference to Napster, absoul? Because Napster has already been picked up, tossed in the soak, wrung out, scrubbed, bleached, washed, tumbled dry and is basically on the way to being moth food. It has been “judged”. It was told it did a no-no. It ain’t an issue no more.

But references to anything still on the “might-be” outlaw fringe are not allowed on this board.

This has been explained to you every upside way already. I’m not going to flame you, but I’m certainly wondering if sub-titles might be required here.

See, if people aren’t understanding your question, your question wasn’t authored well.

If you would stop, regroup, and rephrase instead of getting defensively snippy, you’d most certainly get better answers, and raise less ire.

A space, a space, my kingdom for a space (aarrgh!)

Snipped off a number too!

Fuck it, I’m moving to Mexico and starting my own U.F.O. religion.

Thanks MrC, true dat.

Just to be clear, it is not illegal to discuss other methods of trading MP3s and comment on the legality of such things, right? The MPAA hasn’t actually gotten it to the point where mentioning the name waterj2ster (a theoretical example) is actually banned, has it? I understand and accept the prohibition on such conversation as a SDMB policy, but I don’t really see how the SDMB can get in any legal trouble for allowing discussion of news regarding MP3 sharing software. But then again, I also don’t see how asset forfeiture laws can possibly be constitutional, so it seems the real world doesn’t share my view of what is right and proper.

Ummm…nope. I seem to remember an actual statement by an actual Person of Authority.

OK, once Napster got that ruling against it, all the Copycat sites are doomed also. They do not need individual rulings against them to make what they do illegal. Napster was of doubtful legality all along- but now the doubt is gone- and thus the doubt about the rest of the Sites also. Yes, they have not yet been "shut down’- but there is no reason to think they won’t be. It is like posting a HUGE section of a copyrighted book here- and the Mods saying “NO”- and you coming back & saying “Well, until they sue my individual ass for copyright infraction & win, it is not actually PROVEN illegal, so why not?”. :rolleyes:

I guess if you want to steal music you’ll just have to go back to stuffing CD’s in your backpack. (Should a “smiley” go here?)